Remarkably, this discussion is largely dominated by the defenders of the status quo, rather than by those who have a vision of what the scope and purpose of reporting has to be in relation to the global challenges in front of us.

A closer look at the arguments used reveal support for incremental progress, a misunderstanding of how to use the guidelines, and a lack of consciousness of what will be needed to collectively thrive in a one earth economy:

"Reporting becomes too burdensome": Much of the current criticism has to do with the number of indicators expected and the inclusion of value chain assessments in order better define an organisation's broader negative and positive impacts. Critics say this is too complex for multinationals and too burdensome for smaller organisations.

But this argument completely neglects the fact that reporting is a journey and that the process towards 'good' reporting is a learning trajectory. GRI has always been flexible and offered a "comply or explain" approach, allowing reporters to set multi-year targets, and use omissions where needed, so that the reader can understand the reasoning behind specific shortcomings in reporting. It is hard to understand that the absolute number of indicators that the GRI guidelines carry is still seen as a burden; they are and always were a recommendation of how to report on material issues.

"We don't have the data": This was a valid and often used omission in the past, especially with regard to supply chain reporting. But seven years after the release of GRI G3 we live in a very different world. Lack of data has been replaced by 'big data', and the cost of getting reliable information has dramatically gone down, thanks to information technology. Actually, there is already a growing business of 'making sense' of the enormous amount of available data. This doesn't mean that there aren't problems in getting good data from suppliers, but there is today way more willingness to reveal data if supply chain strategies are based on collaboration instead of pure price pressure and mandatory codes of conduct.

"Value chain assessments are too complex": The G4 draft for public comment is a clear reaction to areas of non-delivery of reporters since the release of G3 in 2006, namely the failure to go beyond legal boundaries. Is it really any wonder that the multi-stakeholder community working on G4 would not accept this any longer? Sure, value chain assessments are complex, especially for organisations with various product groups and business models. But why not start with one example and set targets for a couple of years and learn from the pilots? It is somehow strange to accept that an organisation that has developed its business model wouldn't be planning to look at the positive and negative impacts of their business upstream and downstream. That's especially true today, where we start to think of a circular economy, shifts from ownership to use, scarcity of resources and supply of a capable workforce.

"Sustainability reporting is too costly": What do we do with an organisation that says that sustainability reporting would be too costly? I have seen companies that spend $50m on their annual report, which is often not read page by page by more than 200-300 industry specialists and some important shareholders. But the same companies find $500,000 too much for the sustainability report, which tends to be downloaded and read way more. Hopefully with integrated reporting, this discussion may fade away, but reporters should be aware what they signal when they use this argument.

"Too many indicators": The report process principles in the GRI guidelines normally avoids the use of more indicators than necessary and is in line with the completeness principle through the use of omissions. The much bigger question for the GRI and also the IIRC, however, is whether the indicators are the right ones. There is now much more information available to start building 'impact-based reporting' by developing micro-macro-link indicators on those areas defined for example by the Stockholm Resilience Center or through the Sustainable Society Index (SSI) published by the The Hague Center for Strategic Studies. Every reporter that thinks about value cycle impacts can start to develop a better picture of whether they are part of the problem, part of the solution, or most likely still, part of both. So reporting needs an impact-based meaning that closes the existing sustainability context gap in order to be meaningful. The discussion about the number of indicators in the GRI Guidelines is simply ridiculous.

"We need to please ranking and rating organisations": There are more than 100 rankings with 100 different results on a yearly basis. They add to the confusion of what is 'good' sustainability performance by only focusing on no-context, best-in-class comparisons. Consolidation in this market is inevitable, and 'rating the raters' has now become an interesting discussion, fueling a whole programme at SustainAbility, and led to new initiatives such as the Global Initiative on Sustainability Ratings (GISR) or the US-focused Sustainability Accounting Standards Board (SASB). Organisations that are burdened by 'questionnaire fatigue' should really assess how much they'd like to continue to play this zero sum game or better put their effort into the development of more impact-based, North-Star-oriented disclosure towards 'good' performance.

"Top management isn't ready for more disclosure": We more and more realise that a crisp understanding of the position of the organisation towards sustainability, long-term targets and the right tone from the top are delivering wonders when it comes to motivate the organisation and build reputation with customers and other stakeholders. Integrated thinking needs integrated boards and top managers.

"Capital markets need condensed information to understand sustainability reporting": just a couple of years ago I listened to discussions at ESG conferences where asset managers wanted not more than three indicators on sustainability that could be added to their standard assessment; more wouldn't be possible given the need to benchmark and understand between 100 and 200 companies in an industry portfolio. That time is gone given the work of many important enabling players, including the CDP, UNEP FI/PRI, the Global Footprint Network, and others. Every journey starts with the first step.

We need to understand that we live in the early days of the greatest disruption that industries and society will experience in the next two to three decades, and reporting based on measured value cycle impact should become an enabler of change, not a lagging and compliance-driven instrument in which the legal department has the last say. Integrated thinking only works when it is inspired by a 'North Star' and developed through a clear view on how a company aims to contribute to a thriving world today and, more importantly, tomorrow. The quicker we disrupt incremental reporting patterns and add useful context-based information in reports that triggers collaboration and fuels innovation, the smoother the transition will be.

Ralph Thurm is the founder and managing director of management consultancy A|HEAD|ahead and founder of the ThriveAbility consortium.